Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed for Default: Kusumben Indersinh Dhupia vs. Sudhaben Biharilalji Bhaiya (2019)

/ Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX, Rule 9, Court Procedure, Dismissal for Default, Indira Banerjee, Judges, R. Banumathi, Restoration of Suit

Supreme Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed for Default: Kusumben Indersinh Dhupia vs. Sudhaben Biharilalji Bhaiya (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit dismissed for default should be restored when the plaintiff demonstrates consistent effort to pursue the case. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: Kusumben Indersinh Dhupia vs. Sudhaben Biharilalji Bhaiya & Anr. Judgment Date: January 9, […]

Supreme Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed for Default: Kusumben Indersinh Dhupia vs. Sudhaben Biharilalji Bhaiya (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings: Sneh Lata Goel vs. Pushplata & Ors. (2019) INSC 12

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 96, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Executing Court Jurisdiction, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Jurisdiction, Territorial Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Clarifies Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 12 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Hemant Gupta, J. Can an executing court review a decree based on objections to territorial jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case,

Supreme Court Clarifies Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings: Sneh Lata Goel vs. Pushplata & Ors. (2019) INSC 12 Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Property Disputes

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for resolving private property disputes. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors. Judgment Date: 03 December

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Family Property Dispute Through Consent Terms: Nilesh Mansukhlal Patel vs. Mukesh Mansukhlal Kohtari (2018)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 23, Consent Decree, Deepak Gupta, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Kurian Joseph

Supreme Court Settles Family Property Dispute Through Consent Terms: Nilesh Mansukhlal Patel vs. Mukesh Mansukhlal Kohtari (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Resolution of family property disputes through consent terms. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal Case Name: Nilesh Mansukhlal Patel & Anr. vs. Mukesh Mansukhlal Kohtari & Ors. Judgment Date: November 20, 2018 Date of the Judgment: November 20,

Supreme Court settles Family Property Dispute Through Consent Terms: Nilesh Mansukhlal Patel vs. Mukesh Mansukhlal Kohtari (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Family Property Dispute in Civil Appeal: Gurbachan Singh vs. Gurdial Singh (16 November 2018)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXVI, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Land Demarcation, Property Disputes

Supreme Court Settles Family Property Dispute: Gurbachan Singh vs. Gurdial Singh (2018) Date of the Judgment: 16 November 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Kurian Joseph J., Hemant Gupta J. Can a decades-long family property dispute finally be resolved through court-directed mediation and demarcation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a civil appeal

Supreme Court settles Family Property Dispute in Civil Appeal: Gurbachan Singh vs. Gurdial Singh (16 November 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit for Declaration and Specific Performance: Rakesh Malhotra vs. Kamaljit Singh Sandhu (2018)

/ Agreement to Sell, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 6 Rule 17, Contract Law, Judges, M. R. Shah, Specific Performance, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit for Declaration and Specific Performance: Rakesh Malhotra vs. Kamaljit Singh Sandhu (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for declaration of ownership and possession can be decreed in the absence of a prayer for specific performance of an agreement to sell, and whether such a suit is barred by limitation.

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit for Declaration and Specific Performance: Rakesh Malhotra vs. Kamaljit Singh Sandhu (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limitation period for decree execution: Shanthi vs. T.D. Vishwanathan (2018)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 2(2), Decree, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 136, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court clarifies limitation period for decree execution: Shanthi vs. T.D. Vishwanathan (2018) Date of the Judgment: October 24, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 958 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. When does the clock start ticking for executing a court decree? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a

Supreme Court clarifies limitation period for decree execution: Shanthi vs. T.D. Vishwanathan (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Eviction Case Due to High Court’s Error on Quit Notice: Shrikant vs. Narayan Singh (2018)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indira Banerjee, Judges, R. Banumathi, Second Appeal

Supreme Court Remands Eviction Case Due to High Court’s Error on Quit Notice: Shrikant vs. Narayan Singh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can decide on the validity of a quit notice when it was not a framed issue in the second appeal. CASE TYPE: Civil (Eviction) Case Name: Shrikant vs. Narayan Singh (Dead)

Supreme Court Remands Eviction Case Due to High Court’s Error on Quit Notice: Shrikant vs. Narayan Singh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Partition Rights: Govindammal vs. Vaidiyanathan (2018)

/ Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 11, Court Auction, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, Partition, Property Law, Res Judicata

Supreme Court Upholds Partition Rights: Govindammal vs. Vaidiyanathan (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court auction sale of a property can transfer a title greater than what the judgment debtor possessed and whether the principle of res judicata applies to co-defendants. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Govindammal (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors. vs. Vaidiyanathan

Supreme Court Upholds Partition Rights: Govindammal vs. Vaidiyanathan (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Society’s Right to be Heard in Land Dispute: Gopal Nagar Cooperative vs. Mohd. Aslam (2018) INSC 849 (27 September 2018)

/ Civil Law, Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Order IX, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, R. Banumathi, Right to be Heard

Supreme Court Upholds Society’s Right to be Heard in Land Dispute Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 849 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. Can a court set aside a decree passed without giving a party a fair chance to present its case? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Upholds Society’s Right to be Heard in Land Dispute: Gopal Nagar Cooperative vs. Mohd. Aslam (2018) INSC 849 (27 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the role of Revisionary Court in eviction cases: Hiya Associates vs. Nakshatra Properties (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 41, Eviction, Execution of Decree, Judges, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 with Section 16(1)(n), Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court clarifies the role of Revisionary Court in eviction cases: Hiya Associates vs. Nakshatra Properties (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the appropriate procedure for a Revisionary Court to follow when reviewing an order from an Executing Court in an eviction case. CASE TYPE: This case falls under the ambit of

Supreme Court clarifies the role of Revisionary Court in eviction cases: Hiya Associates vs. Nakshatra Properties (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Live Streaming of Proceedings for Public Access: Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (2018) INSC 784 (26 September 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 153-B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 327, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 145(4), Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Judges

Supreme Court Allows Live Streaming of Proceedings for Public Access Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 784 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Can the public have real-time access to court proceedings? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, paving the way

Supreme Court Allows Live Streaming of Proceedings for Public Access: Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (2018) INSC 784 (26 September 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top